The  Late  Mission  Troubles  at  Dehra 


A Short  Review  of  the*  Case  of 


The  Rev. D. Herron  vs  The  Rev. J.S.Woodside 


in  the  General  Assembly  of  1883 


BV 

2570 
. L68 
1885 


nC , ■ ‘ 

■'TO  $ ? k gtb  J 

Vll  vr 

JaBi'iiLV  "C  >\ 
WBk  % ? « f A 

kf 

■f  j I Jl 

»Yv  7s M 

^10  ,;F  1 

i Tl  *•$ 

[(M 

jkS  ? * h a uy 

*jgr,i  mM 

*<  jgrg  » 

jSwrlt 

BV  2570  . L68  1885 
Lowrie,  John  C.  1808-1900. 
The  late  mission  troubles  a 
Dehra 

J 


r/53!^ 

|fi_3 

l| 


The  Late  Mission  Troubles  at  Dehra. 


NEW  YORK; 

C.  H.  Jones  & Co.,  Printers,  114  Fulton  Street. 


1885. 


13  yn5 
.HsL-3 


NOTE. 


The  personal  difficulties  between  two  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Missionaries 
at  Dehra,  who  were  connected  with  the  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  of  the  Presbyter- 
ian Church,  have  occupied  an  unhappy  prominence  of  late  years.  Their  adverse 
influence  on  a few  of  the  other  Missionaries,  and  the  attempt  by  some  to  censure  the 
Board  of  Foreign  Missions  and  two  of  its  Secretaries  on  account  of  these  troubles, 
have  also  attracted  some  degree  of  public  attention,  having  twice  come  before  the 
General  Assembly.  All  these  things  are  now  happily  ended,  so  far  as  the  brethren 
in  India  are  concerned,  by  the  action  of  the  Synod  of  North  India  in  December  last. 
Only  one  vote  was  given  against  its  decision,  in  a meeting  fully  attended  by  American 
and  Native  members.  The  minutes  of  the  Synod  will  come  before  the  General 
Assembly  at  Cincinnati  for  review. 

While  the  case  is  ended  in  India,  attempts  are  made  to  keep  it  open  in  this 
country.  These  may  be  left  to  the  General  Assembly,  or  to  the  public  opinion  of  the 
Church,  for  settlement.  In  order  to  a correct  understanding  of  the  subject  information  is 
needed.  This  is  not  readily  accessible,  as  it  is  contained  in  various  publications  and 
ecclesiastical  proceedings.  It  has  occurred  to  the  writer  of  these  lines,  as  one  who 
has  reluctantly  had  a considerable  acquaintance  with  these  things,  that  the  cause  of 
Missions  may  be  served  by  a fair  and  temperate  statement  of  the  case,  substantially 
reprinted  from  a Pamphlet  and  its  Appendix,  printed  two  years  ago.  To  this  is 
now  added  a brief  supplement. 

The  object  of  this  publication,  it  will  be  perceived,  is  not  to  keep  alive  any  con- 
troversy, but  to  furnish  information  that  may  be  useful  in  various  ways,  and  especially 
for  the  correction  of  erroneous  statements.  It  will  give  a general  view — First,  of 
the  case  as  it  came  to  the  knowledge  of  the  public  in  this  country  in  the  General 
Assembly,  of  1883  ; Second,  of  its  beginning  and  continuance  until  lately  in  India; 
and  Third,  brief  supplementary  notices  of  some  related  matters. 

The  facts  and  merits  of  the  case,  it  is  believed,  can  be  readily  gathered  from 
the  following  pages. 

The  Title,  as  above,  is  taken  from  the  name  of  the  station  in  India  where  the 
case  began. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/latemissiontroubOOIowr 


A SHORT  REVIEW  OF  THE  CASE  OF  THE  REVv 
DAVID  HERRON  AGAINST  THE  REV.  JOHN 
S.  WOODSIDE  IN  THE  GENERAL 
ASSEMBLY  OF  1883. 

This  case  appeared  before  the  General  Assembly  in  the  form  of 
a “Complaint  of  Saharanpur  Presbytery  against  the  Board  of 
Foreign  Missions  for  reappointing  as  one  of  their  missionaries  in 
India  Mr.  John  S.  Woodside,  whom  this  Presbytery  had  deposed 
from  the  Ministry.”  We  prefer  to  give  it  the  title  by  which  it  is 
well  known  to  the  missionaries  of  our  Church  in  India,  where  it 
has  occupied  their  attention  for  several  years.  The  case  began 
in  personal  difficulties  between  the  two  brethren,  then  both 
respected  members  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  and 
missionaries  of  our  Board.  It  gradually  swept  some  of  the  other 
missionaries  into  its  wake.  It  was  brought  before  one  of  our 
missions,  and  before  the  board,  in  one  form  and  another.  It  then 
reached  our  General  Assembly. 

It  is  formally  a complaint  of  the  Covenanter  Presbytery. 
This  Presbytery  consists  of  two  foreign  and  three  native  minis- 
ters. The  native  brethren  might  well  be  excused,  for  obvious 
reasons,  from  taking  a judicial  part  in  the  personal  difficulties  of 
their  foreign  missionaries;  and  they  certainly  could  have- had 
but  slight  agency  in  drawing  up  this  “complaint.”  Of  the  two 
foreign  members,  one  was,  and  still  is,  absent  from  India  on  a 
furlough,  so  that  Mr.  Herron  must  be  considered  the  chief,  if  not 
the  sole  agent  in  preparing  this  document,  one  that  relates  largely 
to  his  own  share  in  the  proceedings  of  which  it  treats.  He  also 
must  receive  the  credit  of  printing  “for  private  use”  certain 
letters  which  accompanied  his  complaint,  and  which  in  some 
cases  must  have  been  printed  without  the  knowledge  or  inten- 
tion of  their  writers.  At  any  rate,  Mr.  Herron’s  side  of  the  case 
was  fully  brought  before  our  Assembly  by  himself  and  one  of  his 


6 


friends.  A letter  of  Mr.  Woodside,  in  manuscript,  gave  in  much 
briefer  compass  his  side  of  the  case.  These  papers  were  referred 
to  the  Standing  Committee  on  Church  Polity.  There  was  no 
reply  of  the  Board  to  this  complaint.  It  was  not  informed  that 
any  complaint  was  to  be  made  until  Mr.  Herron’s  pamphlet  was 
received,  a few  days  before  the  meeting  of  the  Assembly. 
In  the  latter  part  of  the  Assembly’s  sessions  this  Committee 
reported  its  recommendations  of  numerous  “overtures,”  one  of 
which,  No.  21,  related  to  this  complaint,  and  it  was  immediately 
adopted  without  discussion  or  remark.  The  report  thus 
adopted  gives  a statement  of  the  case  as  it  was  viewed  by  the 
Committee;  and  its  satisfactory  reference  of  the  subject  at  its 
close  to  the  Presbytery  of  Furrukhabad,  probably  accounted 
chiefly  for  the  want  of  consideration  of  the  report  in  the  As- 
sembly. 

With  this  statement  our  short  review  might  end.  But  unhap- 
pily the  action  of  the  Assembly  has  been  construed  as  its  final 
judgment  against  Mr.  Woodside,  so  that  one  of  Mr.  Herron’s 
personal  friends  claims  that  both  the  Board  and  the  Presbytery 
should  summarily  dismiss  Mr.  Woodside  from  any  connection 
with  them ; how  impossible  it  is  that  such  action  could  be 
taken  will  appear  further  on.  Others,  and  among  them  a 
respected  writer  in  the  Presbyterian  Reviezv  of  July,  evidently 
understands  the  Assembly’s  minute  as  one  called  for  by  “the 
whole  mission,”  and  also  as  condemning  the  Board.  And  a 
respected  minister  of  our  Church,  in  one  of  our  newspapers, 
refers  to  the  Board’s  invading  the  rights  of  our  Presbyteries! 
As  to  “the  whole  mission,”  the  missionaries  in  India  are  grouped 
in  three  missions,  so  called.  This  case  was  formally  confined  to 
one  of  them.  But  the  members  of  all  the  three  missions  are  well 
informed  as  to  its  merits.  Some  of  the  members  in  the 
mission  of  which  Dehra  is  a station  disapprove  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Presbytery;  and  in  the  other  missions  many 
members  sympathize  far  more  with  Mr.  Woodside  than  with 
Mr.  Herron  in  these  painful  proceedings. 

And  as  to  the  Board’s  being  impliedly  censured,  not  only  is 
there  no  such  censure  visible,  even  to  those  “who  read  between 
the  lines,”  but  we  see  not  how  it  can  be  maintained.  The  Board 
acted,  as  we  presume  the  Presbytery  of  Furrukhabad  also  acted, 


7 


upon  what  seemed  to  be  the  right  theory,  and  the  common  prac- 
tice of  our  Presbyteries,  to  which  reference  will  soon  be  made. 
Their  action  may  be  thought  to  be  erroneous;  but  if  so,  it  was 
an  error  of  judgment.  It  was  certainly  taken  with  an  impartial 
and  fair  purpose  to  do  what  was  right  and  best.  It  was  not  a 
case  in  which  they  had  any  personal  interest.  They  endeavored 
to  reach  a just  and  reasonable  judgment  in  matters  of  some 
perplexity,  and  they  should  have  the  sympathy  rather  than  the 
censure  of  any  of  their  Christian  brethren.  Further  considera- 
tion of  the  case,  in  a spirit  meant  to  be  candid  and  moderate, 
would  seem  to  be  called  for.  And  especially  is  such  consideration 
proper,  as  bearing  on  principles  of  ecclesiastical  and  missionary 
procedure,  which  are  of  permanent,  and  often  of  great  practical 
importance.  Rightly  understood  in  the  beginning,  and  also  in 
later  years,  these  principles  would  have  prevented  this  painful 
case  from  occurring  at  all ; or  if  not,  then  from  ever  reaching 
either  our  Board  or  our  General  Assembly.  We  do  not  propose, 
indeed,  formally  to  discuss  these  principles,  but  rather  to  consider 
the  case  in  a practical  way,  leaving  the  principles  to  such  illus- 
tration as  the  facts  may  give.  And  here  our  remarks  must  relate 
to  the  case  as  it  was  presented  in  the  General  Assembly.  Other 
things  connected  with  it  will  be  found  in  the  Appendix. 

It  will  be  evident  from  the  foregoing  statement  of  the  case 
that  the  action  reached  by  the  Assembly  was  essentially  that  of 
its  Standing  Committee.  It  may  well  be  doubted  whether  most 
members  of  the  House  fully  understood  the  merits  of  the  subject. 
But  no  reflection  is  here  intended  by  any  means  on  the  action  of 
the  Committee.  It  was  composed  of  brethren  beloved,  and  their 
consideration  of  the  subject  was  certainly  impartial,  and  was 
intended  to  be  so  far  complete  as  to  warrant  the  conclusion  to 
which  they  came.  But  with  twenty-four  overtures  in  hand,  and 
with  the  duties  which  such  prominent  men  had  to  fulfill  in  the  As- 
sembly, how  could  the  Committee  give  full  consideration  to  a case 
at  once  so  complex,  so  depending  on  records  and  events  of  the 
past,  and  so  large  in  its  offered  testimony  of  recent  occurrences? 
It  was  simply  a thing  beyond  their  power.  The  Board  and  its 
Secretaries  had  already  spent  more  time  on  the  case  than  any 
Standing  Committee  could  usually  give,  and  their  consideration 
of  it  was  dispassionate,  impersonal,  entirely  fair,  as  all  who  know 


8 


them  will  certainly  concede;  and  yet  how  far  was  their  course  of 
action  from  proving  satisfactory  to  some  of  the  brethren  on  the 
ground,  let  Mr.  Herron’s  pamphlets  bear  witness.  Better  would 
it  have  been  for  the  Assembly,  if  indeed  the  time  had  come,  to 
have  placed  the  case  in  the  hands  of  a Special  Committee  com- 
posed, not  of  better  men,  but  of  men  not  required  to  consider 
twenty  overtures  besides.  Better  still  would  it  have  been,  as  we 
cannot  but  think,  to  have  waited  until  the  case  came  before  the 
Assembly  by  appeal,  or  on  a review  of  the  records  of  the  Synod 
of  India. 

As  to  the  report  of  the  Standing  Committee: 

i.  It  sets  out  on  a theory  which,  in  fact,  has  no  foundation — 
the  basis  of  “an  agreement  ....  entered  into  years  ago,”  . . . 
“by  which  it  is  implied  that  both  by  agreement  and  comity, 
the  judicial  decisions  of  the  Presbyteries  of  said  Reformed  Pres- 
byterian Church,  touching  the  ecclesiastical  standing  of  their 
ministers,  should  receive  the  respect  from  our  Presbyteries  due 
to  like  decisions  of  one  another.”  The  use  of  the  word  “ implied” 
is  to  be  noted;  but  it  does  not  materially  change  the  sense.  What 
is  fairly  implied  among  Christian  people  has  equal  force  with 
what  is  asserted.  This,  then,  is  substantially  an  agreement  of 
ecclesiastical  correspondence. 

Now  the  right  to  establish  such  correspondence  with  other 
Churches  is  reserved  to  the  General  Assembly.  [Form  of  Gov- 
ernment, Ch.  xii.,  Sec.  5.]  The  minutes  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly show  that  two  attempts  were  made  to  form  such  correspond- 
ence with  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  one  in  1825,  the 
other  in  1847;  but  both  were  fruitless.  The  first  effort  was  in- 
definitely postponed  by  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church;  the 
second  appears  to  have  received  no  reply  from  that  body.  “ The 
subject  disappeared  from  the  minutes.”  [Dr.  Baird’s  Digest.] 
Corresponding  members  from  the  General  Synod  of  the  Reformed 
Presbyterian  Church  were  received  by  the  O.  S.  General  Assem- 
bly for  two  or  three  years  at  a later  period,  but  this  intercourse 
ceased  several  years  before  the  Reunion,  and  it  did  not  seem  to 
rest  on  any  formal  agreement,  such  as  exists  with  the  Reformed 
Dutch  Church  and  other  Churches.  As  the  General  Assembly 
had  no  such  agreement,  neither  had  the  Board.  It  agreed  to 
send  out  certain  Reformed  Presbyterian  ministers  as  mission- 


9 


aries,  but  that  was  all ; it  entered  into  no  ecclesiastical  relations 
with  their  church  courts.  Not  a trace  of  such  agreement  is 
found  in  the  Board’s  minutes,  but  there  are  references  to  great 
unwillingness  to  continue  the  arrangement  of  sending  out  such 
brethren.  Some  of  the  ablest  men  in  the  Board  expressed  their 
grave  doubts,  and  gave  their  votes  against  this  plan  of  joint  mis- 
sionary action,  at  each  time,  when  the  last  two  Reformed  Pres- 
byterian missionaries  were  sent  out;  not  for  any  personal  reasons, 
but  for  the  conviction  that  there  ought  to  be  only  one  directing 
authority,  and  that  union  in  missionary  work  abroad  ought  to 
follow,  and  not  precede,  ecclesiastical  union  at  home.  They 
were  wise  men. 

The  practical  result  of  this  arrangement,  as  adopted  by  the 
Board,  was  to  leave  the  church  organizations  of  the  R.  P.  mis- 
sionaries to  themselves.  Their  acts  would  receive  all  the  respect 
which  the  righteousness  of  such  acts  could  claim — deference  cor- 
dially rendered,  and  never  withholden  except  for  reasons  regarded 
as  sufficient.  This  is  the  theory  of  our  relations  to  several  other 
denominations  of  our  Christian  brethren;  fortunately  for  them 
and  for  us,  no  effort  has  been  made  to  form  any  ecclesiastical 
union  in  missionary  work  with  them,  excepting  always  what  is 
imperative  on  us  all  in  the  Golden  Rule.  Now  as  the  Dehra 
case  stands,  an  ecclesiastical  “agreement”  is  the  corner-stone  of 
the  Committee’s  report.  This  being  removed,  does  not  the 
minute  itself  fall  to  the  ground?  But  let  us  next  consider — 

2.  What  the  righteousness  of  the  Saharanpur  Presbytery’s 
proceedings  and  action  in  Mr.  Woodside’s  case  required  the 
Board  or  the  Church  to  do?  Conceding  cheerfully  that  the  same 
respect  should  be  shown  to  the  acts  of  this  Presbytery  as  to  those 
of  one  of  our  own  Presbyteries,  other  things  being  equal,  we 
must  yet  maintain  that  in  this  Herron  Woodside  case  other  things 
were  not  by  any  means  equal.  (i)  The  Presbytery  had  long 
been  an  independent  body.  It  could  take  whatever  judicial  action 
it  chose,  without  any  redress  if  its  acts  were  wrong  and  oppres- 
sive. There  was  no  appeal  whatever  from  its  decision.  In  this 
respect  it  differed  greatly  from  our  Presbyteries.  (2)  It  took  its 
proceedings  against  Mr.  Woodside  long  after  he  had  withdrawn 
from  its  jurisdiction.  To  this  question  of  jurisdiction  we  shall 
return  further  on  (3)  Its  record  does  not  show  that  previous  to 


10 


the  trial  any  private  cr  personal  conference  with  Mr.  Woodside 
had  been  taken  or  sought.  And  (4)  as  a court,  its  two  foreign 
members  had  long  been  bitterly  alienated  from  their  co-Pres- 
byter,  and  two  at  least  of  the  foreign  ministers  who  were  called 
in  as  “consultative  members,”  and  who  took  an  active  part  in  the 
proceedings,  though  not  voting,  had  also  been  strongly  opposed 
to  him.  Thus  four  out  of  six  of  his  judges  were  disqualified  for 
the  part  they  took  in  this  one-sided  trial.  In  these  important 
respects  the  proceedings  of  this  Presbytery  could  not  command 
the  confidence  of  the  Christian  public.  Certainly  no  minister  of 
our  Church  would  be  willing  to  be  tried  before  such  judges,  in 
any  court,  and  surely  not  in  a court  from  whose  decision  there 
was  no  appeal.  Nor  can  we  believe  that  any  Presbyteiy  of  our 
Church  would  consent  to  sit  in  judgment  on  one  of  its  members 
in  such  circumstances. 

We  are  told,  indeed,  that  “the  Board  must  not  invade  the 
rights  of  the  Presbytery.”  Our  reply  is  given  above,  at  least  in 
part.  We  maintain,  further,  that  the  Board  did  not  do  so  in  this 
case,  no  more  than  it  invaded  the  province  of  the  General 
Assembly  in  the  alleged  agreement  to  establish  a correspondence 
with  another  Church.  It  brought  no  influence  to  bear  on  the 
Presbytery;  it  took  no  part  in  its  proceedings,  directly  or  indi- 
rectly; it  knew  nothing  of  them,  indeed,  until  after  they  were 
taken;  in  short,  it  let  the  Presbytery  alone.  But  it  did  refuse  to 
be  governed  by  its  action.  The  distinction  between  invading  an 
independent  Presbytery’s  province  and  being  absolutely  con- 
trolled by  its  action  is  marked.  The  Board  could  not  consent  to 
either.  Indeed,  the  Board  has  never  from  the  beginning  inter- 
fered with  the  rights  of  Presbyteries,  either  directly  or  indirectly; 
and  that  it  has  not  done  so  now,  the  truth  shows. 

3.  The  Committee’s  report  does  not  refer  to  the  fact  that  Mr. 
Woodside  had  withdrawn  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Presbytery 
of  Saharanpur  nearly  two  years  before  the  trial  took  place.  Of 
course,  therefore,  he  refused  to  be  a party  to  its  proceedings. 
When  he  declined  its  jurisdiction  there  were  no  charges  on  its 
records  of  any  kind  against  him.  Mr.  Herron  admits  this  fact, 
but  lays  stress  on  his  being  chargeable  with  various  things — an 
argument  which  no  court  would  admit  as  a reason  for  a criminal 
verdict,  and  one  which  our  Book  does  not  recognize.  [Book  of 


11 


Discipline,  ch.  v.]  Mr.  Herron  also  refers  to  the  Presbytery’s 
having  given  as  a reason  for  not  accepting  his  withdrawal  that  he 
was  then  pastor  of  one  of  its  churches  ; but  if  no  charges  were  on 
record,  a minister’s  having  been  a pastor  when  he  withdrew  is 
not  regarded  by  our  Church  as  a reason  for  ecclesiastical  disci- 
pline; striking  his  name  from  our  roll  is  considered  sufficient.  A 
remarkable  case  of  a pastor  of  a church  withdrawing  to  join 
another  body  occurred  in  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  when 
such  men  as  Drs.  Phillips,  Spring,  Krebs,  and  others  of  like  stand- 
ing, took  a partin  the  proceedings;  the  decision  was  unanimous 
to  exercise  no  church  discipline,  excepting  simply  the  removing 
from  the  roll  the  name  of  the  seceding  minister.  Mr.  Herron’s 
statement  that  his  co-Presbyter  purposed  to  do  certain  wrong 
things,  and  therefore  the  Presbytery  must  refuse  to  accept  his  de- 
clination, can  only  be  regarded  in  judicial  proceedings  as  a mere 
surmise.  It  is  one,  moreover,  which  subsequent  events  have  dis- 
proved. Without  going  further  into  such  details,  the  reader  will 
regard  one  thing  as  certain — that  Mr.  Woodside  withdrew  from 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Presbytery  when  no  charges  were  pending 
against  him.  That  he  did  not  immediately  apply  to  one  of  our 
Presbyteries  for  admission  was  probably  owing  to  the  fact,  that 
some  of  the  members  of  the  Presbytery,  in  whose  bounds  he  re- 
sided, had  taken  a warm  part  against  him  in  this  painful 
controversy. 

Now,  the  Board,  as  such,  could  not  take  any  action  on  the 
ecclesiastical  merits  of  the  case,  but  it  could  and  did  know  the 
fact  that  Mr.  Woodside  had  declined  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Pres- 
bytery in  an  orderly  way.  The  further  fact  had  to  be  considered 
by  the  Board  that  his  disconnection  from  its  service  was  for  a 
reason  not  ecclesiastical,  and  that  it  was  contingent,  depending 
on  his  course.  [See  its  minute,  page  19,  infra^\  In  fact,  it  never 
was  carried  into  effect.  He  appeared  before  the  Financial  Com- 
mittee of  the  Board  and  made  satisfactory  explanations.  His 
being  replaced  in  his  standing  was,  therefore,  the  right  thing,  so 
far  as  the  Board  was  concerned;  or  his  reappointment,  as  it  is 
commonly  called,  was  in  regular  order.  As  he  had  become  an 
Independent  minister,  for  the  time  being,  it  was  right  also  for  the 
Board  to  condition  its  action  on  his  being  received  by  one  of  our 
Presbyteries.  His  being  so  received  was'  not  only  thus  necessary 


12 


to  his  complete  reappointment  by  the  Board,  but  it  was  a wise 
ordering  for  all  parties.  It  provided  a regular  and  fair  way  of 
proceeding  by  an  impartial  court,  whose  decision  would  be  open 
to  appeal,  so  that  whatever  were  the  merits  or  the  demerits  of 
the  various  charges  made  against  him,  they  could  be  so  examined 
as  to  secure  a decision  that  would  have  the  confidence  of  all  good 
men.  And  as  in  the  case  of  the  Presbytery  of  Saharanpur,  so  in 
that  of  Furrukhabad,  the  Board  and  its  executive  officers  exerted 
no  influence  to  control  its  proceedings  or  its  action — none  what- 
ever. This  has  been  officially  stated  by  the  Presbytery,  of  its 
own  accord. 

It  is  needless  to  consider  in  this  review  the  action  of  our  Pres- 
bytery of  Furrukhabad.  It  undoubtedly  possessed  full  know- 
ledge of  the  case  from  first  to  last,  and  nobody  will  question  the 
fairness  and  thoroughness  of  its  proceedings.  It  received  Mr. 
Woodsidc  in  a regular  way  as  one  of  its  members.  Thus  he  be- 
came a minister  of  our  Church,  and  as  such  he  has  been  engaged 
in  the  regular  work  of  the  ministry  in  its  bounds  for  over  a year. 
His  work  has  had  tokens  of  the  divine  approval  in  the  receiving 
of  hopeful  converts  to  the  communion  of  the  church. 

It  is  not  deemed  needful  to  discuss  the  question  here  whether 
the  Board,  and  afterwards  the  Presbytery  of  Furrukhabad,  rightly 
construed  the  effect  of  declining  the  jurisdiction  of  his  Presbytery 
by  a minister  of  another  Church,  and  applying  to  one  of  our 
Presbyteries  for  admission.  The  question  is  one  for  the  Presby- 
tery in  the  first  instance,  its  action  being  of  course  subject  to  ap- 
peal or  review.  In  rare  cases  ministers  have  declined  our  juris- 
diction, and  we  let  them  go.  In  cases  more  numerous  ministers 
from  other  bodies  have  applied  to  our  Presbyteries  for  admission, 
not  unfrequcntly  without  letters  of  dismission — notably  in  the 
case  of  Episcopal  ministers,  and  they  have  been  cordially  received 
after  careful  examination.  Cases  of  both  kinds  are  reported  in 
our  Digests — in  which  the  General  Assembly  took  suitable  ac- 
tion, judging  of  each  case  on  its  own  merits.  That  is  all  that 
need  be  asked  for  in  this  instance. 

The  Presbytery  of  Furrukhabad  is  placed  by  the  Assembly’s 
action  in  a position  of  difficulty.  Its  members,  loyal  to  the 
Church,  will  no  doubt  conform  to  the  direction  given — to  recon- 
sider their  action,  and  proceed  according  to  the  Constitution. 


13 


They  will  do  this  on  the  ground  of  obedience  to  our  highest 
court;  but  they  will  probably  regret  that  this  direction  was  given, 
without  the  proceedings  of  the  Presbytery  and  the  reasons  for 
their  action  having  been  laid  before  the  Assembly.  Indeed  it 
looks  as  if  the  Presbytery  had  been  censured  without  a hearing. 
Moreover,  the  Presbytery,  as  we  understand,  was  largely  influ- 
enced by  the  theory  stated  above  as  to  the  effect  of  a minister's 
declining  the  jurisdiction  of  his  former  church  when  no  charges 
were  pending  against  him.  The  Presbytery  of  Furrukhabad 
did  not  regard  Mr.  Woodside  as  at  all  a member  of  the  Presby- 
tery of  Saharanpur;  and  it  acted  upon  its  own  convictions  of 
duty  as  to  other  matters,  in  a regular  way.  The  Board  had 
previously  been  influenced  by  the  same  theory.  It  is  a theory 
that  is  often  recognized  by  our  lower  church  courts;  and  we 
think  it  has  never  been  condemned  by  our  General  Assembly. 
It  is  remarkable  that  the  Standing  Committee  made  no  reference 
to  it.  If  the  Committee  could  have  seen  the  way  clear  to  advert 
to  this  ground  of  action  by  the  Presbytery,  even  though  not 
favoring  it,  and  if  it  could  further  have  regarded  the  action  of 
the  Presbytery  as  sufficiently  in  accordance  with  church  order, 
de  facto , to  justify  deferring  a final  decision  until  the  minutes 
of  the  Synod  could  be  laid  before  the  Assembly,  in  regular 
course  or  by  appeal,  we  cannot  but  think  the  delay  would  have 
been  judicious,  and  beneficial  to  all  parties.  We  are  sure,  how- 
ever, that  no  member  of  the  Committee  intended  to  express  any 
unkind  feeling  towards  the  Presbytery. 

The  Presbytery  is  not  a large  one,  but  it  is  composed  of  some 
of  our  best  ministers — of  course  not  including  Mr.  Woodside  at 
present.  They  are  men  of  marked  ability,  and  are  held  in  warm 
esteem  as  men  of  true  missionary  devotedness.  Though,  happily 
for  them,  inexperienced  in  church  controversies,  we  may  expect 
that  through  the  guidance  of  wisdom  from  on  high  their  course 
of  action  will  be  satisfactory  to  the  Church.  They  will,  we  may 
suppose,  state  the  reasons  of  their  action  in  receiving  Mr.  Wood- 
side  as  one  of  their  members;  accept  the  Assembly’s  decision  as 
a matter  of  Church  order;  and  then  proceed  according  to  the 

Standards Some  good  way  of  complying  with  the  directions 

of  the  General  Assembly,  we  may  hope,  will  be  made  apparent. 

New  York,  August,  1883. 


APPENDIX. 


The  preceding  pages  relate  to  the  case  of  Messrs.  Herron  and 
Woodside  as  it  was  dealt  with  in  the  General  Assembly.  Besides 
the  questions  of  jurisdiction  and  deposing  from  the  ministry,  to 
which  the  Committee  on  Church  Polity  restricted  its  report, 
there  were  other  grave  matters  referred  to  in  Mr.  Herron’s  “ Com- 
plaint,” which  it  is  not  perceived  how  the  Assembly  could  take 
up  in  a satisfactory  way.  These  were  contained  in  the  complaint, 
and  in  printed  letters  accompanying  it,  but  were  further  stated  to 
many  persons  by  two  of  the  missionaries — one  a co-Presbyter  of 
Mr.  Plerron,  the  other  his  special  friend,  who  were  on  visits  to 
this  country,  one  last  year  and  the  other  the  year  before.  Many 
things  in  these  letters  and  statements  were  intended  to  confirm 
the  action  of  the  Presbytery  of  Saharanpur,  and  were  severe  in 
their  bearing  on  the  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  and  some  of  its 
executive  officers. 

As  showing  the  nature  and  the  erroneousness  of  these  allega- 
tions, it  is  deemed  expedient  to  append  some  statements  of  facts 
and  reasons.  These  will  also  tend  to  vindicate  the  course  pur- 
sued by  the  Board.  In  some  particulars  this  Appendix  includes 
brief  remarks  previously  printed. 


MESSRS.  HERRON  AND  WOODSIDE. 

As  Plaintiff  and  Defendant — we  print  the  names  of  these 
brethren  in  this  order,  though  Mr.  Woodside  is  the  older  mis- 
sionary. He  went  to  India  in  1848;  Mr.  Herron,  in  1855.  They 
were  both  ministers  of  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  Gene- 
ral Synod,  and  members  of  the  Lodiana  Mission,  India;  both  are 
married  men,  having  very  estimable  families,  and  both  were  resi- 
dents of  Dehra  during  the  time  of  these  troubles.  They  may  be 
described  as  men  differing  in  temperament.  The  former  is  cool, 
and  capable  of  saying  cutting  things  in  a quiet  way,  as  his  printed 


16 


letters  show;  the  latter  is  impulsive  and  quick-tempered,  and  also 
hasty  in  action.  They  were  both  held  in  respect  by  the  other 
members  of  the  Mission  and  by  the  Board.  The  writer  has 
little  knowledge  of  the  earlier  stages  of  their  sad  disagreement; 
he  was  not  in  the  counsels  of  either  at  any  time  of  its  progress, 
but  he  always  shared  for  them  both  the  feelings  of  Christian 
regard  in  which  they  were  held  by  their  missionary  brethren.  It 
is  a reason  of  surprise,  as  well  as  sorrow,  that  brethren  who  had 
lived  together  in  peace  for  so  many  years,  should  at  length 
become  so  sadly  alienated  from  each  other. 

THE  GREAT  MISDEED. 

In  1876  a great  outrage  occurred  between  these  two  men,  in 
which  Mr.  Woodside  was  the  aggressor  under  great  provocation. 
What  passed  between  them  is  known  only  to  God  and  themselves; 
no  witnesses  were  present.  Mr.  Herron  has  published  a state- 
ment of  the  case,  throwing  the  whole  blame  on  Mr.  Woodside. 
We  have  seen  no  statement  by  the  latter,  but  his  friends  speak  of 
his  having  been  called  a liar  by  Mr.  Herron,  and  so  being  hurried 
into  acts  of  violence,  greatly  wrong,  and  deeply  to  be  deplored. 
It  is  probable  that  in  the  dreadful  excitement  neither  could 
exactly  recall  what  took  place.  The  friends  of  both  must  feel 
grateful  that  on  the  next  day  this  wrong  was  settled  by  the  parties 
themselves,  in  the  exercise  of  divine  grace — one  confessing  it,  the 
other  forgiving  it,  and  both  agreeing  to  live  and  labor  for  Christ 
amicably  in  future.  Then  and  there  the  case  was  buried,  and  it 
should  never  have  been  heard  of  again  in  this  world. 

The  Board  knew  nothing  of  all  this  for  several  months  after- 
wards. Then  Mr.  Herron  wrote  to  one  of  the  Secretaries,  men- 
tioning the  case.  This  led  to  inquiries  addressed  to  the  Mission, 
and  at  a general  meeting  full  statements  were  made  by  both  men, 
in  the  midst  of  deep  feelings  of  sorrow  in  the  hearts  of  all.  Again 
was  grace  magnified  in  the  settlement  of  the  whole  painful  trouble, 
and  the  Mission  sent  a request  to  the  Board  that  no  further  steps 
should  be  taken  in  regard  to  it.  Accordingly  the  Board  did  not 
deem  it  expedient  to  reopen  a case,  which  seemed  to  have  been 
settled  by  themselves  and  the  Mission. 

But,  alas,  a third  time  it  reappears  in  Mr  Herron’s  dreadful 
affidavit — leaving  now  a distressing  idea  of  his  unforgiving  spirit. 
Some  of  our  friends  have  said,  why  did  not  the  Board  dismiss  a 
missionary  who  could  commit  such  an  assault  on  a brother  mis- 
sionary? Others  have  said,  why  did  the  Board  retain  as  a 
missionary  one  who  has  shown  such  feelings  of  revenge?  One 
of  our  prominent  ministers  expressed  the  opinion  that  both  of 
them  should  have  been  dismissed  from  the  service  of  the  Board. 


IT 


But  the  Lord  did  not  dismiss  Peter  from  his  service  after  his 
dreadful  fall,  nor  did  Peter’s  brethren  set  themselves  against  him. 
Besides,  there  were  questions  of  church  discipline  to  be  con- 
sidered— not  within  the  province  of  the  Board.  At  any  rate  a 
Missionary  Board  should  be  slow  to  resort  to  extreme  measures, 
and  the  hope  should  not  readily  be  abandoned  that  both  these 
brethren  would  yet  be  enabled  to  forgive  each  other  and  to  live 
in  unqualified  devotedness  to  the  great  object  which  took  them 
to  India. 

ALLEGATION  OF  DISHONESTY. 

In  reference  to  the  charge  of  “dishonesty,”  it  is  due  to  Mr. 
Woodside  to  state  that  some  rumors  of  this  kind,  from  whatso- 
ever source  emanating,  were  referred  by  the  Board  to  an  able 
Committee  of  Missionaries,  and,  upon  their  examination,  Mr. 
Woodside  was  acquitted.  While  referring  to  his  not  being 
sufficiently  prompt  and  careful  in  the  settlement  of  his  accounts 
with  Mr.  Herron,  still  the  Committee  does  “not  find  anything 
which  at  all  impugns  his  integrity.”  This  report  was  made  to 
the  Board  after  an  extended  and  exhaustive  examination,  signed 
by  the  three  members  of  the  Committee,  Rev.  Drs.  Brodhead  and 
Morrison,  and  Rev.  R.  Thackwell,  Dehra,  April  20th,  1878. 

It  is  greatly  to  be  regrefted  that  the  closing  lines  of  the  Com- 
mittee’s report  could  not  have  received  greater  fulfillment,  when 
they  say:  “The  Committee  ventures  the  hope  that  this  satisfac- 
tory adjustment  of  the  long-standing  accounts  between  these 
brethren  may  serve  to  remove  all  alienation,  and  conduce  to  the 
mutual  good-will  and  brotherly  feeling  which  should  characterize 
those  who  are  engaged  in  the  Lord’s  work.” 

ACTION  OF  THE  LODIANA  MISSION. 

The  two  preceding  matters  were  well  known  to  the  members 
of  the  Lodiana  Mission.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  when  the  Mis- 
sion, January  2,  1879,  took  its  first  action  against  Mr.  Woodside, 
it  did  not  refer  to  either  of  these  things,  but  specified  “Various 
Secularities,”  and  little  missionary  work,  as  stated  in  its  minute 
— as  follows: 

“ Resolved , That  in  accepting  the  reasons  assigned  by  Mr. 
Woodside  a few  days  ago  for  continuing,  during  the  present 
year,  in  the  Directorship  of  the  Dehra  Doon  Tea  Company,  the 
mission  did  not  intend  to  express  approval  of  the  various  secu- 
larities outside  of  the  mission  he  is  reputed  to  have  been  long 
engaged  in.  On  the  contrary,  we  think  that  every  missionary 
who  allows  himself  to  be  much  engaged  in  such  things,  com- 
promises his  position  as  a missionary,  and  forfeits  his  claim  for 
pecuniary  support,  on  the  Society  or  Board  whose  commission 


18 


he  holds;  and  considering  how  little  direct  missionary  work  (so 
far  as  we  have  been  able  to  learn  from  his  reports,  or  otherwise) 
Mr.  Woodside  has  even  attempted  since  his  return  from  America, 
without  going  further  back  than  that,  we  are  compelled  to  raise 
the  question  whether  his  connection  with  the  mission  is  not  a 
mistake;  and  we  seriously  recommend  to  the  consideration,  both 
of  himself  and  the  Board,  whether  this  connection  ought  not  to 
terminate. 

“This  we  do  with  the  greatest  reluctance;  partly  because  the 
personal  feelings  of  most  of  us  towards  Mr.  Woodside  would 
lead  us  to  desire  his  continuance  among  us,  and  partly  because 
we  shrink  from  doing  any  thing  which  might  pain  Mrs.  Wood- 
side  or  Miss  Jane  Woodside,  both  of  whom  we  hold  in  the  high- 
est esteem.  Nevertheless,  we  feel  that  fidelity  to  the  Board,  and 
to  the  cause  we  represent,  demands  such  action.” 

The  writer  does  not  know  what  “secularities  ” are  here  referred 
to. . They  probably  include  two  things — one  of  which  deserves 
a remark  here,  and  the  other  will  be  noticed  in  the  next  para- 
graph. Mr.  Woodside’s  relation  to  the  Tea  Company  is  specified 
in  the  minute.  We  suppose  that  this  resulted  from  his  previous 
effort  to  form  “the  Hope  Town”  settlement.  His  object  in  this 
was  to  secure  a large  tract  of  land,  on  which  native  Christians 
might  provide  their  own  support.  Losing  everything  by  losing 
caste  on  becoming  Christians,  and  finding  it  extremely  difficult  to 
engage  in  any  business,  their  situation  is  one  that  calls  for  great 
sympathy.  Mr.  Woodside’s  proposed  way  of  supplying  the 
means  of  self-support,  by  their  own  industry  in  the  cultivation  of 
of  land,  was  no  new  scheme.  It  had  been  considered  by  friends 
of  missions,  and  carried  into  practical  effect  in  some  cases — 
notably  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Sheshadri,  whose  visit  to  this  country  will 
be  remembered  by  many,  and  who  is  still  conducting  a measure 
of  this  kind,  as  a missionary  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland. 
But  Mr.  Woodside’s  plan  was  formed  on  too  large  a scale  for 
the  pecuniary  means  at  his  command;  and  as  he  had  purchased 
the  land,  it  became  necessary  to  dispose  of  it,  and  it  was  bought 
by  the  Tea  Company,  with  the  understanding  that  he  should  aid 
for  a time  in  settling  its  plans.  His  sanguine  expectations  of 
benefit  to  the  native  Christians,  though  not  fulfilled  as  at  first 
devised,  might  yet  as  it  was  hoped  be  partly  realized.  The 
charge  of  this  measure  probably  took  too  much  of  his  time,  but 
we  believe  that  those  who  are  most  unfriendly  to  him  do  not 
assert  that  he  made  money  by  this  “ secularly.” 

ACTION  OF  THE  BOARD. 

The  minute  of  the  Mission,  cited  above,  came  before  the  Board 
in  regular  routine  for  its  approval.  Thereupon  the  Board 
adopted  the  following  Minute,  October  13,  1879: 


10 


“The  minute  of  the  Lodiana  Mission  respecting  the  Rev. 
John  S.  Woodside,  one  of  the  members  of  the  Mission,  under 
date  of  January  2,  1879  (see  printed  minutes  of  the  Mission  on 
file  in  the  Mission  House,  pages  34,  35),  was  laid  before  the 
Board,  and  certain  letters  from  Mr.  Woodside  and  Dr.  Morrison 
on  the  same  subject.  After  consideration  the  Board  agreed, 

“That,  while  giving  to  the  Mission  full  credit  for  the  purpose 
of  doing  what  was  right  in  the  case,  yet  as  its  minute  show  no 
record  of  previous  personal  conference  with  Mr.  Woodside,  no 
charges  tabled  against  him,  nor  any  previous  notice  to  him  of  the 
proposed  minute;  and  no  proofs  sustaining  this  minute,  there- 
fore the  Board  is  unable  to  take  any  action  in  the  case,  beyond 
expressing  its  great  regret  that  such  difficulties  should  seem  to 
exist  as  to  call  for  the  resolution  adopted  by  brethren  engaged  in 
the  missionary  work  concerning  one  of  their  number. 

“ It  was  further  agreed,  that  as  this  result  is  reached  in  view  of 
the  record  contained  in  the  minute  itself  of  the  Lodiana  Mission, 
it  is  therefore  needless  to  read  and  consider  the  letters  of  Messrs. 
Woodside  and  Morrison,  D.D.,  relating  to  the  subject. 

“The  Board  took  into  consideration  the  request  of  Rev.  John  S. 
Woodside,  that  he  should  be  stationed  at  Dehra  and  transferred  to 

the  Furrukhabad  Mission  as  stated  in  his  letters  of and  August 

2d.  It  was  agreed  that  it  is  inexpedient  to  place  Mr.  Woodside 
at  Dehra;  but  his  request  to  be  transferred  to  the  Furrukhabad 
Mission  was  granted,  with  the  understanding  that  he  is  then  to  be- 
come a member  of  the  Furrukhabad  or  the  Allahabad  Presbytery. 

“It  was  further  agreed,  referring  to  the  Minutes  of  the  Boaid 
of  April  14,  1879,  *n  regard  to  the  transfer  of  certain  property 
without  reserve  by  Rev.  John  S.  Woodside,  which  transfer,  the 
Board  is  informed,  has  not  yet  been  made  by  him,  that  the  Board 
must  insist  on  this  transfer  being  made  without  longer  delay; 
and  that,  if  this  direction  be  not  complied  with,  the  Board  must 
terminate  its  connection  with  him.  And  it  hereby  directs,  in  this 
case,  the  Treasurer  of  the  Lodiana  Mission  to  make  no  further 
payments  for  salary  or  other  purposes  on  his  account. 

“And  the  Board  agreed  to  record  its  great  regret  at  the  neces- 
sity of  taking  this  action  towards  one  so  long  in  its  service  as  a 
missionary,  and  its  sincere  hope  that  the  case  may  be  satisfacto- 
rily adjusted.” 

The  part  of  this  minute  which  refers  to  the  action  of  the  Lo- 
diana Mission  will  surely  be  approved  by  all  who  are  acquainted 
with  our  Church  Standards — see  Book  of  Discipline,  ch.  v. 
Though  neither  the  Mission  nor  the  Board  has  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction  in  a case  which  involves  the  character  and  continu- 
ance in  office  of  a minister  of  the  gospel,  yet  both  are  bound  to 
have  respect  to  the  principles  which  govern  the  case  in  whatever 
action  or  non-action  they  might  take. 


20 


But  the  latter  part  of  the  Board's  minute  relates  to  another 
matter,  which  we  suppose  was  classed  among  “ the  secularises,” 
though  the  reason  of  the  minute  rested  on  quite  different  ground. 
As  this  matter  between  the  Board  and  Mr.  Woodside  has  been 
satisfactorily  settled,  it  is  not  deemed  needful  to  enter  into  the 
details  of  the  subject. 

In  justice  to  him,  however,  it  should  be  stated  that  he  claimed, 
in  taking  certain  titles  to  properties,  to  have  acted  under  direc- 
tions from  a gentleman  in  this  country,  of  the  R.  P.  Church,  who 
was  entitled  to  his  respect,  however  much  mistaken  this  gentle- 
man was;  and  in  justice  to  the  Board  it  may  be  stated  that  its 
action,  first  and  last,  was  taken  in  its  own  line  as  a matter  of  mis- 
sionary superintendence,  and  not  as  exercising  any  ecclesiastical 
functions.  The  Board  was  not  indifferent  to  these  charges;  it 
deplored  them,  whether  true  or  false,  and  believed  that  they  ought 
to  be  investigated  in  the  right  way.  But  they  were  matters 
which  required  the  action  of  church  courts;  and  partly  to  secure 
a full  and  fair  examination  of  these  allegations  of  evil-doing,  if 
need  be,  and  partly  in  compliance  with  its  own  rule  as  to  Presby- 
terial  connection,  Mr.  Woodside  having  become  an  Independent 
minister,  the  Board  made  his  reappointment  subject  to  his  being 
received  by  one  of  our  Presbyteries.  According  to  its  usage  in 
other  cases,  no  special  recommendation  of  a Presbytery  was  re- 
quired of  one  who  had  already  been  in  its  service;  but,  in  the 
circumstances,  his  being  received  by  a Presbytery  would  be  also 
an  ample  recommendation.  If  we  are  correctly  informed,  such  a 
recommendation  if  called  for  would  be  given  with  warm  good- 
will at  any  time  by  the  Presbytery  of  Furrukhabad,  of  which  he 
is  now  a member. 

THE  PRESBYTERY  OF  SAHARANPUR  AND  ITS  PROCEEDINGS. 

In  the  order  of  dates,  the  next  thing  to  be  considered  would  be 
the  course  pursued  by  this  body.  This  has  been  discussed  al- 
ready, however,  in  this  pamphlet,  and  calls  for  no  further  remark 
here  on  its  general  merits.  As  showing  the  animus  of  some  of 
Mr.  Woodside’s  judges,  particular  incidents  might  be  mentioned. 
Prior  to  his  trial  one  of  his  judges  repeatedly  referred  to  him  as 
“that  wicked  man.”  Two  of  them,  also  prior  to  the  trial,  refused 
in  Mr.  Herron’s  absence  the  request  of  a retired  General  of  the 
British  army,  resident  with  his  family  at  Dehra,  for  the  use  of 
our  chapel  at  that  station  on  the  occasion  of  his  daughter’s  mar- 
riage. The  reason  assigned  for  this  refusal  was  that  the  service 
was  to  be  conducted  by  Mr.  Woodside.  This  singular  incident 
suggests,  contrary  to  the  array  of  local  opinion  in  some  of  the  let- 
ters, that  after  all  there  were  persons  of  social  position  who  held 
Mr.  Woodside  in  respect  and  confidence.  It  may  be  further  noted, 


21 


as  a singular  phase  of  the  proceedings  in  the  Presbytery  that  some 
of  the  members  appear  to  have  acted  both  as  witnesses  and  as 
judges! 

THE  NATIVE  PRESBYTERS. 

The  connection  of  the  native  brethren  with  the  proceedings  in 
Presbytery  has  been  amply  described  in  Mr.  Herron’s  pamphlets. 
As  to  these  brethren,  no  disparagement  is  intended  when  the 
opinion  is  expressed,  that  they  should  not  be  expected  to  take  a 
part  in  settling  officially  personal  difficulties  between  the  foreign 
missionaries.  The  writer  of  these  lines  has  always  maintained 
their  full  standing  and  rights  in  Presbyteries,  but  they  may  well 
waive  the  exercise  of  some  of  these  rights  in  some  cases.  Ask- 
ing to  be  excused  from  taking  part  in  some  proceedings  is  not 
uncommon  amongst  us  here,  and  implies  no  reflection  on  any 
man’s  standing.  Moreover,  as  to  the  native  members,  it  is  stated 
that  they  not  only  were  not  informed  as  to  some  important  mat- 
ters until  at  or  near  the  meeting  of  the  Presbytery,  but  that  then 
they  heard  only  one  side  of  the  case.  It  is  indeed  lamentable  to 
be  told  that  these  partisan  pamphlets  have  been  sent  to  other 
native  ministers  of  our  Church  in  India. 

SUNDRY  CRITICISMS. 

It  is  no  part  of  the  writer’s  purpose  to  refer  to  all  of  the  criti- 
cisms which  this  painful  case  has  brought  before  the  public.  In- 
deed, he  has  been  anxious  to  enter  but  little  into  these  details — 
leaving  them  to  be  considered  by  the  proper  tribunals,  and  by 
the  Judge  of  all.  Remembering  the  infirmity  of  human  nature 
at  its  best  estate,  the  temptations  and  risks  of  disagreement  in 
the  small  company  usually  living  at  a missionary  station,  the 
proper  zeal  of  each  missionary  for  his  own  field  and  work,  the 
difficulty  of  his  appreciating  the  relative  claims  of  different  mis- 
sions which  must  be  considered  by  the  Board  at  home,  it  is  not 
surprising  that  disagreements  both  personal  and  general  should 
at  times  occur  on  missionary  ground.  The  remedy  of  them  is 
chiefly  grace,  even  more  grace. 

Keeping  all  this  in  mind,  we  yet  feel  constrained  to  say  that 
some  of  the  writers  of  letters  in  one  of  Mr.  Herron’s  pamphlets 
have  gone  too  far  in  their  criticisms.  We  gladly  except  most  of 
them  from  remark  here,  though  in  some  instances  they  should 
have  had  a better  knowledge  of  the  case  as  viewed  on  all  sides. 
Others  go  beyond  the  bounds  of  propriety.  In  two  cases  there 
is  apparently  a purpose  to  show  that  the  Board  and  one  of  its 
Secretaries  were  hindering  the  work  of  our  missions  in  India! 
And  a paragraph  to  this  effect  is  quoted  from  a letter  of  a minis- 
ter of  our  Church  in  this  country!  A somewhat  similar  charge 


22 


was  made  by  one  of  these  missionaries  years  ago,  while  on  a visit 
to  this  country,  and  it  was  refuted  at  the  time  with  clear  proofs.* 
It  had  been  renewed,  and  again  disproved;  and  now  it  reappears. 
It  is  a charge  that  ought  to  be  ruled  out  of  court.  Even  if  true, 
it  is  not  perceived  how  it  could  benefit  Mr.  Herron.  There  are 
singular  statements,  moreover,  about  one  of  the  Secretaries  wield- 
ing too  much  power  over  his  colleagues,  and  even  controlling 
the  actions  of  the  Board!  To  those  who  know  the  men  thus  dis- 
paraged, such  insinuations  are  absurd,  though  not  less  surpris- 
ing. The  neglect  by  the  Board  of  certain  legal  advices  sent  from 
India  merely  show  that  laymen  in  law,  even  though  ministers  in 
the  Church,  are  not  always  safe  legal  counsellors.  It  ought  to 
have  been  taken  for  granted  that  the  action  of  the  Board,  in  the 
matters  referred  to  that  were  of  any  moment,  was  taken  under 
the  best  legal  authority.  We  pass  by  these  criticisms  and  others 
quite  serious,  though  easily  disproved,  but  we  cannot  forbear  ex- 
pressing great  regret  at  the  bitter  tone  of  some  of  these  criticis- 
ing remarks.  Some  of  them  were  made  by  one  who  has  since 
gone  to  a better  country.  It  is  pleasant  to  believe  that  his  hap- 
piness there  has  been  increased,  by  finding  that  his  brethren  were 
not  deserving  of  his  severe  censures.  In  the  case  of  Mr.  Herron 
there  is  still  need  of  repentance,  for  he  refers  to  a respected  min- 
ister of  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  Central,  formerly  of  the 
Reformed  Presbyterian  Church,  who  with  his  congregation  united 
with  our  body,  and  uses  the  following  terms:  “If  another  minis- 
ter of  Philadelphia,  under  the  influence  of  Mr.  Woodside’s  ex- 
planations and  denials,  disregarded  his  ordination  vows,  and 
followed  an  illegal  and  divisive  course,  his  conduct  should  not  be 
held  up  as  an  example.” 

SUPPRESSING  LETTERS. 

One  of  the  criticisms,  or  charges  rather,  must  not  be  allowed 
to  pass  without  denial,  viz.:  that  one  of  the  Secretaries  suppressed 
letters  that  ought  to  have  been  presented  to  the  Board,  and  that 
keeping  the  letters  back,  he  gave  the  Board  his  own  impressions 
of  their  contents,  or  manipulated  them  so  as  to  favor  Mr.  Wood- 
side.  Perhaps  the  authors  of  this  charge  did  not  reflect  on  its 
serious  nature.  But  no  upright  man  could  be  guilty  of  such 
wrong  and  dishonorable  conduct  under  any  circumstances,  and 
certainly  not  in  his  official  trust.  This  charge  is  wholly  untrue 
The  letters  were  all  laid  before  the  Board,  without  any  change, 
without  any  statement  of  their  contents  excepting  that  they  re- 
lated to  personal  difficulties,  and  without  any  expression  of 
opinion  concerning  them.  It  is  a cause  of  deep  regret  personally 
to  have  to  deny  such  a charge.  [It  should  be  stated  now,  1885, 


* Sm  Record,  1863 — July  and  August. 


23 


that  the  Mission  formally  disapproved  afterwards  the  publication 
of  these  letters,  and  that  most  of  the  writers  expressed  their 
regret  for  what  they  wrote,  having  become  satisfied  that  they 
were  mistaken.] 

LIFE  BURDENED  AND  DARKENED  FOR  YEARS. 

The  only  other  example  of  strange  misunderstanding  we  shall 
refer  to  is  Mr.  Herron’s  statement,  repeated  in  two  of  his  pamph- 
lets, that  for  years  his  life  has  been  “ burdened  and  darkened 
by  the  unfriendly  action,  the  persecution,  and  the  injustice  of  the 
Board.”  And  the  great  example  of  all  this  began  more  than 
twenty  years  ago,  when  the  Secretary  then  in  charge  of  the  cor- 
respondence endeavored  to  take  out  of  his  hands  the  school  for 
girls  in  Dehra.  This  attempt  was  defeated  by  the  unanimous 
vote  of  the  two  missions  then  existing;  but  it  led  to  a corres- 
pondence so  unpleasant  on  the  part  of  the  Secretary  that  Mr. 
Herron  had  “to  break  it  off.”  And  from  that  time  to  this,  we 
are  again  informed,  he  has  “felt  deeply  and  painfully,  especially 
within  the  last  few  years,  that  the  action  of  the  Board  has  been 
generally  not  only  unfriendly,  but  unjust  to  me  personally,”  and 
more  to  the  same  effect.  Well,  we  shall  see.  A man  ought  to 
have  a good  memory  who  speaks  confidently  of  details  written 
so  long  ago. 

Taking  “the  last  few  years”  first,  the  only  ground  apparent 
for  his  complaint  must  consist  in  the  change  of  opinion  as  to  girls’ 
schools  being  superintended  by  ladiek  rather  than  men.  The 
Board  has  schools  for  girls,  some  of  them  higher  in  grade  than 
the  Dehra  school,  others  about  the  same,  in  its  missions  in  Syria, 
Persia,  Siam,  China,  Japan,  etc.,  that  are  admirably  superintended 
by  Christian  women;  why  should  not  the  same  kind  of  superin- 
tendence be  adopted  at  Dehra?  This  question  has  been  considered 
of  late  years,  but  always  impersonally,  and  a decision  has  been 
reached  in  favor  of  this  change,  most  of  the  members  of  the  mission, 
if  not  all  of  them,  concurring;  and  a well  qualified  lady  has  been 
appointed  for  this  service.'  This  change  was  not  welcomed  by 
Mr.  Herron,  but  it  will  permit  him  to  enter  on  other  kinds  of  mis- 
sionary work,  in  which  more  men  are  greatly  needed.  He  ought 
not  to  set  this  down  as  “unjust  to  him  personally.”  If  there  is 
any  other  ground  of  complaint  lately,  apart  from  the  Herron- 
Woodside  case,  we  cannot  imagine  what  it  is. 

Now,  as  to  his  complaint  cherished  for  twenty-one  years,  one 
of  the  Secretaries,  in  charge  then  of  the  correspondence,  had 
entirely  forgotten  the  subject,  and  cannot  recollect  his  thinking 
of  it  for  many  years ; the  other  Secretary  had  never  heard  of  it, 
so  that  he  could  not  have  “ inherited  ” any  unfriendly  feeling  on 
this  account.  Providentially  the  correspondence  that  took  place 


at  the  time  is  on  file  in  the  Mission  House,  and  it  has  been 
lately  examined.  It  shows  literally  not  a line  that  ought  to  be 
unpleasant  to  any  missionary,  nor  a word  that  anybody  would 
complain  of,  so  far  as  the  Secretary  was  concerned;  and  so  far  as 
Mr.  Herron  was  concerned,  it  must  be  admitted  that  one  of  his 
letters  did  contain  a few  things  that  were  severe,  but  they  were 
answered  on  the  rule  that  “ a soft  answer  turneth  away  wrath.” 
So  far  as  Mr.  Herron’s  statement  of  his  “breaking  off”  the  cor- 
respondence is  concerned,  his  letters  show  that  he  did  nothing  of 
the  kind,  but  he  continued  to  write  to  the  Secretary  in  as  friendly 
and  even  as  affectionate  a way  as  ever  for  several  years  after- 
wards, even  down  to  the  time  of  his  first  coming  home  from  India. 
He  speaks  of  “a  few  private  letters”  passing  between  the  Secre- 
tary and  himself  before  he  “broke  off”  the  correspondence.  But 
neither  his  own  letters  on  file,  nor  the  copies  of  letters  to  him  in 
the  office  letter-books,  nor  the  office  diary,  in  which  the  names 
and  dates  of  all  the  Secretary’s  letters  on  such  mission  matters 
arc  entered,  give  any  evidence  of  any  such  “private  letters,”  nor 
indeed  of  any  other  letters  than  those  above  mentioned. 

As  to  the  subject  of  this  school,  Mr.  Herron  speaks  of  the 
Secretary  as  if  he  alone  were  the  author  of  the  proposed  mea- 
sure, and  makes  no  reference  to  its  real  history,  and  to  the  action 
of  the  Board  in  the  matter.*  It  fact,  it  was  a well-devised  pro- 
posal, suggested  and  advocated  by  Dr.  and  Mrs.  Janvier,  two  of 
our  best  missionaries,  then  at  home  on  a visit,  themselves  highly 
qualified  for  the  charge  of  such  a school,  and  expecting  to  be 
aided,  if  the  measure  were  approved,  by  a lady  of  eminent  gifts 
and  grace — the  late  Miss  Catharine  Beatty,  who  went  to  India 
with  them.  It  contemplated  a school  of  high  grade.  The  Board 
carefully  considered  the  proposed  school,  approved  of  it,  and  sent 
it  to  the  mission  for  its  consideration,  but  taking  it  almost  for 
granted  that  it  would  be  welcomed.  So  far  all  was  regular  and 
hopeful.  Unhappily  Mr.  Herron  seemed  to  have  regarded  it  as 
“an  opposition  line”  to  a girls’  school  then  under  the  charge  of 
his  wife — one  of  the  truly  excellent  and  devoted  missionary 
women — wrote  a circular  to  the  missionaries  on  the  subject,  of 
course  stating  the  case  from  his  point  of  view;  whereupon  they 


* “ A letter  was  read  from  Mrs.  Janvier,  of  September  6,  i860,  on  the  subject  of 
establishing  a school  for  the  higher  education  of  the  daughters  of  native  Christians  in 
India.  After  consideration,  the  Committee  gave  its  approval  in  general  terms  to  a 
measure  of  this  kind,  but  referred  it  to  the  Lodiana  and  Furrukhabad  Missions  to 
consider  whether  one  of  the  existing  orphan  girls’  asylums  could  not  be  enlarged  so 
as  to  answer  this  purpose;  and  if  not,  then  to  determine  the  location  of  the  school  and 
the  details  of  its  management,  it  being  understood  that  its  ad  vantages  should  not  be 
restricted  in  all  cases  to  native  Christian  girls.” — Minutes  Executive  Committee , Sep- 
tember id,  i860. 


withheld  their  consent,  and  the  case  ended,  leaving  no  unfriendly 
feeling,  no  feeling,  indeed,  but  that  of  regret  at  the  Mission 
House.  Miss  Beatty  afterwards  was  connected  with  the  school 
of  Mrs.  Herron,  after  her  lamented  death.  The  result,  as  it  ap- 
pears to  us  now,  was  only  one  school  instead  of  two.  It  maybe 
added  that  Mr.  Herron’s  circular  letter  is  not  found  on  the  Mission 
House  files;  it  probably  was  not  sent  to  this  country,  which  is  a 
matter  of  regret.  Its  perusal  might  perhaps  modify  some  things 
in  the  foregoing  statements,  written  partly  from  memory,  as  now 
recalled  to  the  case,  but  written  chiefly  from  the  letters  on  file. 
The  whole  correspondence  on  the  subject  might  well  be  printed 
as  a “Missionary  Paper,”  teaching  some  good  lessons  of  expe- 
rience, but  certainly  not  casting  any  dark  cloud  on  Mr.  Herron, 
nor  impugning  the  Christian  conduct  of  the  Board  and  its  Secre- 
tary then  in  charge.  Mr.  Herron  has  been  in  this  country  twice 
since  this  correspondence  took  place,  and  has  had  repeated  con- 
versations with  the  Secretary,  but  never  referred  to  this  deep  in- 
jury. How  easily  might  he  then  have  spoken  of  it,  and  how 
easily  might  he  have  called  attention  to  it  by  a kind  and  Christian 
letter,  which  would  surely  have  brought  a good  letter  in  reply. 
How  much  is  it  to  be  regretted  that  he  should  have  brooded' over 
this  matter  for  all  these  years,  and  at  length  assail  the  Board  and 
its  Secretary,  and  spread  before  the  Christian  public  this  state- 
ment of  causeless  grief! 

In  closing  these  remarks  the  writer  ought  to  say  that  in  this 
case,  from  the  beginning,  so  far  as  he  has  had  anything  to  do  with 
it,  he  has  endeavored  to  do  as  he  would  be  done  by  in  regard  to 
each  one  and  all  of  his  brethren.  He  has  had  no  favoritism 
among  the  missionaries  to  gratify,  nor  any  “protege”  to  protect. 
He  has  not  said  anything  to  any  one  which  he  was  not  quite 
willing  that  all  might  hear.  He  is  not  conscious  of  ever  having 
had  any  but  kind  feelings  towards  both  of  these  missionaries. 
He  looks  on  this  controversy  as  a great  calamity  to  the  work  of 
our  Church  in  India.  Surely  it  ought  to  cease.  Why  should 
not  both  Mr.  Woodside  and  Mr.  Herron  forgive  and  try  to  for- 
get the  painful  events  of  the  last  few  years?  Why  should  they 
not  devote  all  their  remaining  time  and  strength,  with  one  accord, 
as  in  former  days,  to  the  great  work  of  missionary  life.  Let  the 
one  work  of  saving  souls  and  glorifying  Christ  our  Lord  occupy 
the  strength  of  all  our  missionaries.  Nothing  is  too  hard  for 
God.  May  He  bring  our  brethren  back,  chastened  by  sad  expe- 
rience, to  united  service  for  our  Saviour  and  His  kingdom! 


NOTE. 

This  pamphlet  is  printed  in  25ocopies,  but  not  published.  It  will  lie  sent  to  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Board,  the  missionaries,  members  of  the  Assembly’s  Committee,  and  others. 
The  writer  has  always  believed  in  the  open  consideration  of  public  matters  in  the 
work  of  Christian  Missions,  excepting  in  the  case  of  personal  things,  and  especially 
of  personal  difficulties,  which  sometimes  occur  among  good  men  abroad  as  well  as  at 
home.  The  less  these  are  made  public,  the  better. 

f As  this  case  now  stands  before  the  Church,  in  1885,  it  seems  expedient  to  place  this 
pamphlet  within  reach  of  any  who  may  wish  to  see  it.  It  may  be  ordered  from  the 
printers;  price  15  cents.  See  their  address  on  the  title  page.] 


SUPPLEMENT. 


1.  A good  deal  of  consideration  has  been  given,  since  the 
action  of  the  General  Assembly  in  1883,  to  the  Dehra  case, 
especially  in  India.  It  was  taken  up  officially  by  the  Presbytery 
of  Furrukhabad,  as  directed  by  the  Assembly,  and  information 
was  sought  from  all  parties,  and  particularly  from  members  of  the 
Presbytery  of  Saharanpur.  A copy  of  its  minutes  or  proceedings 
at  the  trial  of  Mr.  Woodside,  we  understand,  was  specially  asked 
for,  but  was  not  received.  In  due  time  the  Presbytery  reached 
its  decision.  Then  the  whole  case  came  before  the  Synod  of 
North  India  on  review  of  the  minutes  of  the  Presbytery  and  at  its 
request.  After  some  days  spent  by  the  Synod  on  the  subject, 
the  discussions  being  in  both  English  and  Hindustani,  the  action 
of  the  Presbytery  was  sustained  by  a large  vote;  only  a few 
voted  in  the  negative.  The  Presbytery  also  requested  the 
General  Assembly  to  revoke  the  implied  censure  of  that  venerable 
body’s  proceedings  touching  the  Presbytery  in  1883,  for  reasons 
assigned.  This  was  cordially  and  unanimously  done  by  the 
General  Assembly  of  1884;  which  also  gave  further  instructions 
to  the  Synod.  These  were  complied  with  and  the  subject 
came  for  the  second  time  before  the  Synod  in  December  last, 
when  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  was  again  sustained  by  a vote 
almost  unanimous,  only  one  member  voting  in  the  negative.  It 
may  be  that  a few  of  the  members  did  not  vote,  regarding  it  as 
high  time  that  all  controversy  should  come  to  an  end;  but  it  is 
understood  that  the  great  majority  of  the  members  of  the  Synod 
concurred  in  its  action.  It  is  gratifying  to  learn  that  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Synod  were  marked  by  a most  Christian  spirit. 

So  far  as  the  result  in  India  is  concerned,  therefore,  Mr. 
Woodside  stands  rectus  in  ecclesia , and  the  policy  and  proceedings 
of  the  Board  in  this  long  pending  case  are  approved.  It  is  un- 
derstood that  public  opinion  in  Upper  India  among  religious 
people  generally  accords  with  this  action. 

2.  Previous  to  the  last  meeting  of  the  Synod,  the  three  native 
ministers  of  the  Presbytery  of  Saharanpur,  withdrew  from  that 
body,  applied  to  the  Presbytery  of  Lodiana,  and  were  received 


28 


by  it  as  members.  In  seeking  this  change,  so  far  as  is  known, 
they  were  moved  by  their  own  convictions  of  duty.  They  are 
brethren  fully  capable  of  judging  as  to  what  they  ought  to  do; 
Mr.  Herron’s  commendation  of  them  may  well  be  accepted  as 
worthy  of  confidence.  They  constituted  the  majority  of  ministers 
in  the  Presbytery,  and  they  might  have  voted  to  disband  it. 
They  were  probably  not  sufficiently  advanced  in  matters  ecclesi- 
astical to  have  taken  this  step. 

3.  Their  withdrawing  from  the  Presbytery  of  Saharanpur 
revived  the  question  as  to  its  anomalous  position,  standing  inde- 
pendent of  all  other  presbyterial  organizations,  “at  once  a 
Presbytery,  a Synod,  and  a General  Assembly,”  as  one  of  its  two 
American  members  is  said  to  have  described  it,  a body  whose 
actions  admitted  of  no  appeal  nor  any  supervision. 

This  Presbytery  was  constituted  on  the  original  basis  as  between 
the  R.  P.  Synod’s  Board  and  the  Assembly’s  Board:  First. — That 
all  ecclesiastical  matters  appertained  to  the  former;  and  Second.— 
That  all  matters  of  property,  to  the  latter.  A stipulated  part  of  the 
salaries  of  its  missionaries  was  also  to  be  paid  by  the  former.  This 
understanding  was  dated  back  to  the  days  of  the  Western 
Foreign  Missionary  Society, before  the  Presbytery  was  organized; 
and  when  the  missions  of  the  Society  were  transferred  to  the 
Assembly’s  Board  this  agreement  was  continued  between  the  two 
Boards.  There  was  no  agreement  between  the  two  Churches, 
nor  any  between  the  two  Boards,  excepting  as  above  stated.  It 
has  been  so  ordered  that  three  men,  then  young  and  active,  had 
much  to  do  with  this  missionary  arrangement;  men  who  are  still 
living;  who  have  in  all  these  years  been  connected  with  this  joint 
missionary  work  in  India,  one  by  his  noble  gifts,  all  three  by 
earnest  labors,  who  will  all  confirm  the  correctness  of  this  state- 
ment as  to  the  administrative  order  of  the  Saharanpur  mission. 
The  Presbytery  of  that  name  was  long  a useful  and  respected 
body.  But  as  the  years  passed,  the  desire  of  its  members  for 
organic  union  with  the  Assembly’s  missionaries  in  their  Synod 
increased,  until  it  became  a settled  opinion  that  this  union  would 
be  effected.  In  the  meantime  difficulties  sprang  up  at  home  in 
the  R.  P.  Synod;  then  followed  the  independent  position  of  this 
Presbytery ; and  some  years  later  the  serious  troubles  in  the 
Presbytery  itself,  until  at  last  but  two  of  its  ministers  remained. 


During  all  its  history,  the  Board  of  the  General  Assembly 
and  its  executive  officers  kept  perfectly  good  faith  with  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Saharanpur,  its  missionaries,  and  its  friends  in  this 
country.  It  is  a sin  and  a shame  to  allege  any  violation  of 
duty  in  this  respect.  At  length,  however,  it  became  evident 
that  some  change  would  have  to  be  made.  Two  ministers 
do  not  constitute  a Presbytery  in  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
Neither  is  it  the  policy  of  the  Board  to  support  mission- 
aries who  are  not  connected  with  the  church  in  this  coun- 
try. The  financial  support  of  the  members  for  a number  of 
years  devolved  almost  entirely  on  the  Board,  though  a few  R.  P. 
friends  continued  to  send  to  the  Board’s  treasury  their  good  gifts 
for  the  work  in  India.  For  such  reasons  as  these  the  Board  a few 
months  ago  adopted  a Minute,  which  looks  to  the  two  remaining 
members  of  this  Presbytery  becoming  connected  with  the 
Presbyterian  missions  on  the  usual  basis.  It  is  hoped  that  they 
will  both  consent  to  do  so.  Thereby  the  Presbytery  would  cease 
to  exist,  to  the  regret  of  many,  but  with  submission  by  its  special 
friends  to  what  seems  to  be  the  clear  ordering  of  Providence. 
Whether  as  a several  work,  or  as  a united  work,  preferably  as  a 
united  work  in  all  respects,  these  special  friends  will  not  cease  to 
support  with  prayer,  sympathy  and  good  gifts,  the  work  of  so 
many  years. 

4.  Other  things  might  be  referred  to,  especially  the  lesson 
taught  that  a Missionary  Board  cannot  officially  adjudicate 
the  difficulties  sometimes  occurring  abroad,  which  involve 
ministerial  or  personal  character.  These  must  be  relegated  to 
the  Session  or  the  Presbytery.  The  Board  must  keep  on  in  its 
own  line  as,  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  responsible  to  the 
General  Assembly,  and  not  to  the  local  Presbytery.  This  is 
true  at  home  and  abroad.  But  if  the  Board  errs  in  its  action,  it 
will  be  readily  set  right  by  the  General  Assembly,  our  controll- 
ing authority.  It  may  be  added  that  this  Dehra  case  affords 
signal  testimony  to  the  importance  of  putting  cases  of  practical 
difficulty,  if  need  be, in  the  hands  of  our  church  courts.  Subjecting 
the  case,  in  one  of  its  stages,  to  the  action  of  one  of  the  Presby- 
teries, was  a wise  and  proper  measure,  and  was  expected  by  the 
Board  as  likely  to  lead  to  happy  consequences,  even  as  the  end 
has  so  far  shown. 


30 


5-  Deeply  to  be  regretted  as  are  “difficulties”  among  good 
men,  let  them  not  be  exaggerated.  They  are  the  result  of  human 
infirmity  and  remaining  evil  in  the  heart.  The  great  adversary 
lias  also  far  too  much  to  do  with  them.  But  grace  reigns.  Never 
before  was  the  prospect  of  success  greater  in  our  missionary 
work  in  India  than  it  is  to-day.  The  number  of  communicants 
is  not  yet  large,  but  it  is  increasing,  having  about  doubled  in  the  last 
ten  years;  though  for  two  years  it  was  apparently  reduced.  /Yet 
as  stated  in  the  Annual  Reports  of  those  years,  this  small  decrease 
was  caused  in  one  year  by  statistics  not  received,  and  in  the 
second  year  by  the  revision  of  the  roll.  In  the  year  just  ended, 
though  returns  from  several  churches  are  not  given  in  the  statisti- 
cal reports,  yet  the  Synod  could  say:  “ Some  of  the  congregations 
have  had  special  manifestations  of  the  Spirit’s  presence  and 
power.  This  is  specially  true  of  the  churches  at  Allahabad, 
Mainpuri,  Lahore,  Rawal  Pindi,  and  Lodiand.  During  the  year 
165  persons  have  been  received  into  our  churches,  but  inasmuch 
as  92  were  removed  by  death  and  otherwise,  the  net  gain  has 
been  73.  The  people  show  greater  zeal  in  the  work  of  the  Lord, 
many  churches  having  reported  an  increase  in  the  number  of 
voluntary  workers  among  their  members.”  Signal  cases  of  con- 
version attest  the  presence  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  Even  the  sys- 
tem of  caste  itself  will  be  overruled  so  as  to  aid  in  the  conver- 
sion of  multitudes,  as  also  of  isolated  cases.  The  time  will  soon 
come,  as  we  may  believe,  when  thousands  of  converts  will  con- 
fess Christ  as  their  Saviour,  even  as  among  the  Teloogoos  in  South 
India.  The  leavening  influence  of  the  Gospel  is  widely  diffused 
and  of  great  power  in  North  India.  And  never  before  were  our 
missionaries  more  anxious  to  see  their  work  prospered  from  on 
high.  This  was  very  manifest  in  their  remarkable  Semi-cen- 
tennial Conference  a few  months  ago  at  Lodiana. 

Writing  in  the  evening  of  his  ministry,  after  long  observa- 
tion and  study  of  India  missions  particularly,  the  writer  of  this 
pamphlet  believes  that  early  and  great  success  will  crown  our  work 
for  Christ  in  that  country. 

J.  C.  L. 

New  York,  May,  1885. 


avji 

PAMPHLET  BINDER 

Syracuse,  N.  Y. 
Stockton,  Calif. 


